Methodology for selecting publications for scientific reviews
https://doi.org/10.33186/1027-3689-2022-11-56-81
Abstract
The task of searching and selecting publications for scientific reviews is located on the intersection of science and art. The increasing publication flow has made it all harder to reveal relevant and important papers for scientific community. The methodological approach being described enables to organize selecting publications for reviews while decreasing accidental mistakes and subjective declinations; it is to structure primary selection with its further expansion, reduction and analysis, that can be accomplished in several iterations resulting in the final selection, its analytical features and formalized protocol. The authors describe the method structure and provide the example for the subject “embedded librarian”. This example demonstrates the advantages of the approach as compared to the traditional search by keywords: various variants of search strategies are applicable; their repeatability and exhaustiveness of resulted selection. The method can be applied in academic and sci-tech libraries to develop their services supporting science and research.
About the Authors
A. V. Malysheva
Russian Research Institute of Economics, Politics and Law in Science and Technology
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Aleksandra V. Malysheva – Junior Researcher, Laboratory for Scientometrics and Scholarly Communications
Moscow
D. V. Kosyakov
Russian Research Institute of Economics, Politics and Law in Science and Technology
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Denis V. Kosyakov – Deputy Head of the Laboratory for Scientometrics and Scholarly Communications
Moscow
A. E. Guskov
Russian Research Institute of Economics, Politics and Law in Science and Technology
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Andrey E. Guskov – Cand. Sc. (Engineering), Head of the Laboratory for Scientometrics and Scholarly Communications
Moscow
References
1. Yu Z., Menzies T. FAST2: An intelligent assistant for finding relevant papers // Expert Systems with Applications. 2019. Vol. 120. P. 57–71.
2. Egger M. et. al. How important are comprehensive literature searches and the assessment of trial quality in systematic reviews? Empirical study // Health Technol Assessment. 2003. Vol. 1. № 7. P. 1–76.
3. Song F. et al. Dissemination and publication of research findings: an updated review of related biases // Health Technol Assessment. 2010. Vol. 14. № 8. P. III, IX–XI, 1–193.
4. Sideri S., Papageorgiou S. N., Eliades T. Registration in the international pro-spective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) of systematic review protocols was associated with increased review quality // Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2018. Vol. 100. C. 103– 110. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.01.003
5. Liberati A. et. al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and metaanalyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration // Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2009. Vol. 62. № 10. P. e1–e34. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.006
6. Bagirova A. V., Kosyakov D. V., Guskov A. E. The 50 Most Highly Cited Reviews of 2013– 2017 // Scientific and Technical Information Processing. 2021. Vol. 48. № 3. P. 168–184.
7. Buchkremer R. et. al. The application of artificial intelligence technologies as a substitute for reading and to support and enhance the authoring of scientific review articles // IEEE Access. 2019. Vol. 7. P. 65263–65276. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2917719
8. Chen C. Cascading citation expansion // Journal of Information Science Theory and Practice. 2018. Vol. 2. № 6. P. 6–23.
9. Chen C., Song M. Visualizing a field of research: A methodology of systematic scientometric reviews // PLoS ONE. 2019. Vol. 10. № 14. P. e0223994. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0223994
10. Kamenskaia M. A. E`voliutciia informatcionno bibliotechnogo obsluzhivaniia: voprosy` terminologii // Nauchno-tekhnicheskaia informatciia. Seriia 1: Organizatciia i metodika informatcionnoi` raboty`. 2016. № 8. S. 24–33.
11. Galiavieva M. S. Nauchny`e biblioteki v informatcionnom soprovozhdenii i podderzhke nauchny`kh issledovanii`: osnovny`e tendentcii // Trudy` GPNTB SO RAN. 2017. № 121. S. 221–227.
12. Kesselman M. A., Watstein S. B. Creating opportunities: Embedded librarians // Journal of Library Administration. 2009. Vol. 49. № 4. P. 383–400. doi: 10.1080/01930820902832538
13. Drewes K., Hoffman N. Academic embedded librarianship: An introduction // Public service quarterly. 2010. Vol. 6. № 2–3. P. 75–82. doi: 10.1080/15228959.2010.498773
14. Ziede E. J. In bed with the military: First Amendment implications of embedded journalism // NYUL Rev. 2005. Vol. 80. P. 1309.
15. Dewey B. I. The embedded librarian: Strategic campus collaborations // Resource Sharing & Information Networks. 2004. Vol. 17. № 1–2. P. 5–17. doi: 10.1300/J121v17n01_02
16. Shumaker D., Tyler L. Embedded Library Services: An Initial Inquiry into Practices for Their Development, Management, and Delivery. In: Shumaker D. et al. (eds.) Special Libraries Association Annual Conference, Denver, CO (2007).
17. Shumaker D. The Embedded Librarian: Innovative Strategies for Taking Knowledge Where It's Needed // Medford: Information Today. 2012. XVII, 212 S.
18. Shumaker D. et. al. Models of Embedded Librarianship Final Report (2009). URL: https://embeddedlibrarian.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/models-of-embeddedlibrarianship_finalreportrev.pdf.
19. Shumaker D., Talley M. Models of embedded librarianship: A research summary // Information Outlook. 2010. Vol. 14. № 1. P. 26–35.
Review
For citations:
Malysheva A.V., Kosyakov D.V., Guskov A.E. Methodology for selecting publications for scientific reviews. Scientific and Technical Libraries. 2022;(11):56-81. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.33186/1027-3689-2022-11-56-81
Views:
577
Email this article 